.. Zucker responded: "What Boxee was doing was illegally taking the content that was on Hulu without any business deal. We have several distributors...of the Hulu content that we have legal distribution deals with, so we don't preclude distribution deals. What we preclude are those that illegally take that content."

That accusation before Congress that Boxee violated the law triggered a lengthy response late this afternoon from Boxee Founder and CEO Avner Ronen, on his company's blog: "Boxee uses a web browser to access Hulu's content -- just like Firefox or Internet Explorer. Boxee users click on a link to Hulu's Web site and the video within that page plays. We don't 'take' the video. We don't copy it. We don't put ads on top of it. The video and the ads play like they do on other browsers or on Hulu Desktop. And it certainly is legal to do so."

The question of whether enabling access to another Web site's video through one's software is effectively "redistribution," cuts to the heart of the major issue of contention surrounding the ... Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010 [via Betanews]

Surrounding quite a lot in the media world. It seems to me that they are all absolutely desparate to control the 'frame', not just what is displayed in that frame (which is the bit they have the rights too).

This is what the row in the UK about project Canvas is about -- the BBC saying they are being open and wonderful and generally terrific (I know, I know) and Sky and Virgin (platform providers) being very suspicious about why the BBC of all organisations should want to build a platform.

My opinion? Everyone is terrified that in the future (or already) content is worthless, its only the frame (where the adverts sit) that is monetisable. Certainly in the UK we need to come to a better settlement or we are stuck in a world of almost zero viewer competion. Do you really want a world where you can only buy one TV set?

The Turbine Light concept (which is going to be a part of the upcoming Greener Gadgets conference in New York City at the end of this month) harnesses the power of the wind from cars rushing past to light up the ever-darkening roadways. The turbines use the wind collected to generate energy for the lighting [via Engadget]

... The people that need to be cut at MS are the managers that don't support their teams and only support their own careers ..... [via Betanews]

In all my various incarnations being bossed by managers in Companies of any size at all, I've only ever met one who didnt fit this description - the utterly insprirational force that was behind Cellnet's early success (and its not the person who seems to paint themselves as such in the media). IMHO, its a size and longevity issue - there are more people who have only their own interests at heart than 'play for the team' - the bigger you are, the longer you have been reliant on a particular product the more you will hire them. Apple re-invents and re-cycles product to do more than just keep screwing the consumers, its keeps Apple on its toes pretending its young and vibrant and relevant.

two sage statements that have always struck me as obvious. But then why Twitter is so popular among a particular class of people is a mystery to me. Oh well, cheer up, its Friday. BTW, my kids dont use twitter but use just about everything else (that includes those I probably dont know about).

Like many of you out there, we’ve been perfectly happy with the free version of the service. Over the last few months though, Spotify has added lots of new features to the Premium offering. Having tried it out for a few weeks, we can say that it’s well worth the monthly £9.99 if you’re a music fan.

Exactly and the rumour is that companies are struggling with the ad-model, revenue is spread to thin .. Google is sucking up most of the air with very little left for anyone else (a bad variant on the long-tail theory?) so the only way these services are going to survive is subscription. If you want it, pay for it.

Oh I havent had a good ramble rant for ages and ages and ages .. the above link points out the BBC's wonderful habit (it seems to me) of editing stories to cover up the total hash/downright misinformation of some of its journalism. Its a poor defence really isnt it - are we really meant to keep going back to articles to see what the latest 'truth' is? Not fair to bash the good old Beeb really, they are all the same. Tis my humble opinion that journalism hasnt changed much over the years but we can now see the BBC changing its articles as its view of the 'truth of the matter' changes - in bygone days, they broadcast a story and never the correction there would be. Just the same in the printed media. IMHO of course. Its the seeing the changes that is different, and its a good thing, though one wonders about the damage to the brand that all the revisions make. end of ramble.

To all my regular readers a fond hello again after a few months of not being bothered that this thing didnt work, even not noticed that this thing didnt work and so i have slipped out off the google number one spot. Now, test number 3 in a sequence of indeterminate number - will i make it back again?